We’ve talked about porn before (here and here), what do we think of this?:
From the Feminist Daily News:
Sexually Explicit Magazines Return to Army Exchanges After 10 Year Ban
“Penthouse, along with Playgirl and Ultra for Men, returned to Army and Air Force military exchanges this summer after being banned 10 years ago by a Pentagon review board for being sexually explicit. By July, Penthouse was available in more than 500 exchange outlets worldwide, including in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 40 anti-pornography groups plan to appeal to the Pentagon Inspector General.
…
‘I know from my 20 years as a prosecutor and as an activist that men involved in porn look at women in a different way. At the military academies, they’re selling the same magazines. Don’t women deserve to be safe in that environment?’ Patrick Trueman, special counsel to one of the groups involved, told the Air Force Times. He cited incidents of sexual harassment in the military and other problems that he contends are exacerbated by pornography.”
The Feminist Daily News is strongly opposed to this development, but I’m unsure what I think.
On the one hand, I don’t really like the kind of porn that Penthouse and Playboy produce, more often than not it makes me feel uncomfortable and distressed. On the other hand, (I’m pretty sure that) the women in Penthouse and Playboy are consenting, and if the magazines brighten up the lives of soldiers fighting in this horrible war - because it is horrible, and I wouldn’t want to be them, no matter what I think of the war itself - isn’t that a good thing?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
12 comments
My gut reaction is that the women in the military have it hard enough trying to deal with harassment without the men having military-approved porn available too.
Posted by Nika
September 26, 2007, 12:56 PM
The military-industrial complex already thrives on the premise that women are less than fully human. Why add fuel to the fire by giving them materials that reinforce that statement? Why should we continue to condone equating men feeling good (i.e. 'brightening up their lives') with men exerting dominance over women?
Any uplift in morale that occurs at the expense of women--either the ones in the photos (who may be 'consenting' but are contributing to a system that thrives on non-consent) or the real-life women the men serve with--is not something I will ever stand behind, nor will I ever believe it's a genuine palliative to the horrors of war.
Posted by apophenia
September 26, 2007, 2:31 PM
That's what I thought too - that if men in my workspace had pictures of nekkid ladies pinned on the walls, it would create an environment that I felt uncomfortable in. But then I also realised that that's me, and maybe other women wouldn't have a problem with it.
Posted by Thea
September 26, 2007, 2:33 PM
Hmmm, quite the necessity on the battlefield....
Posted by Erin
September 26, 2007, 3:29 PM
This is an interesting debate for me as someone who is a feminist who is also pro-porn (with limitations.) The reality is that people who serve in the military are people who have 24 hour a day jobs, and devote their "personal time" to their work. Therefore by banning pornography outright, they are banning porn in their personal lives.
As someone who occasionally enjoys pornography, I wouldn't want my employer to ban it completely from my private life. Were women in the military also banned from viewing/having pornographic magazines? Are there now pornographic magazines available to women at these exchanges? I think I need to understand more about the extent of the original ban (and the current allowance) to make a judgement, but I think that banning pornography outright is problematic. I agree there should be workplace rules (as in you can't put a nudie pic up over your desk, as Thea mentioned) but is it fair to say that someone in the military can't have access to a pornographic magazine to be viewed in "a private moment?"
I suppose it is all dependent on your feelings on magazines like Penthouse and Playboy, and porn in general. I don't necessarily think "porn=degrading to women" (although it can be) so I would be a little more flexible on the subject than someone who believes all pornographic imagery damages women.
Posted by Stacey May
September 26, 2007, 8:02 PM
An Army exchange is a store for the soldiers on the base. So basically what this means is that soldiers can buy porn again. It's not that it's being distributed, and it's not that beforehand soldiers were prohibited from reading porn (I'm guessing that if a friend sent them some porn it wouldn't be confiscated), it just means they can buy it, wherever they're working.
I'd definitely be a little disturbed in the military was buying and distributing porn to the soldiers, but I think they should be able to buy it. I doubt however, that the Army Exchange carries gay porn or porn for ladies.
Posted by Thea
September 26, 2007, 9:16 PM
I'm pretty wary of the anti-sex/anti-porn wings of feminism, mostly because I associate them with homophobic purges. Why stop at condemning one kind of perversion?
I would rather there weren't pages from those magazines pinned around my place of work, though surely selling magazines on the base doesn’t rule out keeping them off the walls.
Posted by Allison
September 26, 2007, 11:41 PM
What will they provide the straight women, or the lesbians, or the gay men serving in the military?
As a lesbian, if I was serving and saw men looking at lesbian porn magazines I would be outraged and feel uncomfortable.
Posted by Jess
September 27, 2007, 2:15 PM
I just wish the porn was better, i.e. showed strong, real-looking, non- or less-airbrushed types of women in non-submissive roles. Penthouse and Playboy are the worst in these respects. So I guess my opinion is that the type of porn is the real problem. I also think the poster above has a point about porn equality for the non-straight men in the army.
Posted by Megan
October 10, 2007, 5:40 AM
When was this stuff written? I've been in the military for 3 years and am on my second tour through Iraq. All forms of porn, both electronic and paper are banned through general order #1. We just gave a soldier an article 15 for having pornographic magazines in his living quarters, and we certainly don't have pornographic materials available to us at the PX, either here or in garrison. But if it's a choice, we would much rather have alcohol than porn mags.
Posted by JN
October 21, 2007, 6:48 PM
I can understand women in the military finding some kinds of pornography offensive and not wishing to have it in their living quarters but surely the availability of pornography does not mean the guys will immediately be posting it in their mess facility? Maybe in a war zone there are bigger issues facing women soldiers, and the fact that they have made it through what was for years a male system leads me to believe they might be able to handle a little porno.
And as pornography is readily available to men outside of war I dont understand how banning it during conflict can honestly make an impact to their opinion of women. As the girlfriend of a man serving I'd like to think he actually had the porn than not because I know it puts him in a good mood and maybe that's all he needs to get home in one piece.
Posted by K
November 29, 2007, 11:32 PM
Come on people, give em a break, give our men the magizines! Don't you think they deserve that much?!
Posted by skylar
February 21, 2008, 1:12 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.